Suchergebnisse

Russia's "Fundamentals of the State Policy of the Russian Federation in the Area of Nuclear Deterrence," a high-level strategic document, says that Russia "hypothetically" could allow the use of nuclear weapons only "in response to aggression using WMD [weapons of mass destruction]" or if there is "aggression using conventional weapons, when the very existence of the state is threatened."Responding to France's President Emmanuel Macron's February 6 statement that "no option should be discarded" in ensuring the defeat of Russia, including "troops on the ground" in Ukraine, Russia's President Vladimir Putin said that "we are ready to use any weapon, including [tactical nuclear weapons], when it comes to the existence of the Russian state and harm to our sovereignty and independence. Everything is spelt out in our strategy, we have not changed it."Macron replied that France is also a nuclear power. "We must first and foremost feel protected," Macron said, "because we are a nuclear power." He then added, "We are ready; we have a doctrine [for the use of nuclear weapons]."France is ready to send troops into Ukraine "to counter the Russian forces" and even to prepare for nuclear war. In a March 19 opinion piece in the French paper Le Monde, General Pierre Schill, Chief of the French Army Staff, declares that "nuclear deterrence safeguards France's vital interests." Reminding the world of France's "international responsibilities" and "interests" and "defense agreements," he says that "the French army is preparing for the toughest engagements, making this known and demonstrating it."But what do the French really mean by saying they are "preparing for the toughest engagement" and that Europe must be "ready" to have "troops on the ground" in Ukraine?Macron has said that NATO must not discard the option of "troops on the ground" to ensure that "Russia does not win." But win what? Does Macron want to ensure that Russia does not defeat Ukraine for Ukraine's sake, or does he mean that Russia should not win in Ukraine for the subsequent defense of Europe?Macron said that the time was coming "in our Europe where it will be appropriate not to be a coward" and that it is time for a "strategic leap." He pressed Germany to send their long-range Taurus missiles, reminding them that they once said, "'Never, never tanks; never, never planes; never, never long-range missiles'…. I remind you that two years ago, many around this table said: 'We will offer sleeping bags and helmets.'"When it came to the option of sending troops into Ukraine, Macron said that anyone who advocates "limits" on how the West helps Ukraine "chooses defeat." He insisted that "if the situation should deteriorate, we would be ready to make sure that Russia never wins that war." Europe must be "ready," he said, "to reach the means to achieve our objective, which is that Russia does not win."It sounded as if Macron was talking about Russian victory in Ukraine again when he considered the threshold for sending troops. "We're not in that situation today," he said, but "all these options are on the table." Following a March 7 meeting with parliamentary parties, Fabien Roussel, national secretary of the French Communist Party, reportedly said that "Macron referenced a scenario that could lead to intervention [of French troops]: the advancement of the front towards Odessa or Kiev." Macron's objective again seemed to solely be Ukraine when he said in a March 14 interview, "We are doing everything we can to help Ukraine defeat Russia, because I will say it very simply: there can be no lasting peace if there is no sovereignty, if there is no return to Ukraine's internationally recognized borders, including Crimea."But, against all these apparent narrow references to Ukraine, Macron's subsequent discussions of the threshold for troops sounded more as if they were about the defense of Europe than of Ukraine. He said that "war is back on our [i.e. Europe's] soil" and that Russia is "extending every day their threat of attacking us even more, and that we will have to live up to history and the courage that it requires."On March 14, Macron, again expressing his position that sending troops from NATO countries is an option that should not be discarded, said that "to have peace in Ukraine, we must not be weak." This time, he gave as his reason that Russia's invasion of Ukraine was "existential for our Europe and for France."He proceeded to say that "it wouldn't be us" who would trigger such a move and that France would not lead an offensive into Ukraine against Russia. "It would be Russia's sole choice and sole responsibility," he said. And then he added, "If war was to spread to Europe," it would "be weak, to decide today that we would not respond."But even if Macron means defending Europe from Russia, does he mean from an actual attack or simply a potential attack?With several of his aforementioned statements, Macron sounds like he means that Europe must be ready to defend against an actual attack from Russia after it defeats Ukraine. Yet elsewhere, Macron sounds like he is referring only to a potential attack, saying that Russia must not be victorious in Ukraine because that "would reduce Europe's credibility to zero" and would mean that "we have no security."Interpreting Macron's motives may be even more difficult than ascertaining his statements' bare meaning. Why would Macron express the previously inexpressible and risk crossing the red line of a third world war?It is of course impossible to know Macron's mind, so any analysis is speculative. But there are at least three possibilities.The first is that the intended target of his comments is not Russia at all, but the U.S. and Germany. With American war funding struggling against a congressional dam and Germany refusing to send Taurus long-range missiles, Macron may be trying to apply psychological pressure to his allies to send Ukraine more money and weapons assuming they would find that option more palatable than going even further and sending troops.The second is that the intended target of his comments is Russia. In this possibility, the goal is to create "strategic ambiguity." The purpose would be, as explained by one French diplomat, so that Russia, as it advances west in Ukraine, cannot rely on the assumption "that none of Ukraine's partner countries will ever be deployed" to Ukraine. The French newspaper Le Monde reports that "Macron's office explained that the aim is to restore the West's 'strategic ambiguity.' After the failure of the Ukrainian 2023 counter-offensive, the French president believes that promising tens of billions of euros in aid and delivering—delayed—military equipment to Kyiv is no longer enough. Especially if Putin is convinced that the West has permanently ruled out mobilizing its forces."The third possibility is that the intended target of his comments is Europe. Europe must prepare for the possibility of a Trump administration weakening its commitment to Europe and NATO. That would leave Europe with more responsibility for the defense of Ukraine and of itself. While Germany has been the economic leader of Europe, France has seen itself as the security leader.One diplomat told Le Monde that while Germany "is afraid of escalation…. France wants to give the impression that it isn't afraid." Macron "may have wanted to make it clear to Scholz that their two countries are not in the same league" as Macron positions France to be the security leader of Europe in a post-Biden Trump-led world. Macron has opened the door to the discussion of Western troops on the ground in Ukraine. With the risks that come with opening that door, it will be important for everyone to clarify both Macron's threshold and his motivation for sending troops to Ukraine.This piece has been republished with permission from The American Conservative.

Global Affairs Canada announced this week that a Canadian had died in Ukraine. Later reporting revealed that his name was Jean-Francois Ratelle and that he was a commander of the Norman Brigade, which, according to CTV News, is "a fighting force of volunteers from several different countries commanded by a CAF veteran who goes by 'Hrulf.'" Hrulf was Ratell's call sign. But the news raises an important, and hard to answer question: How many Canadians, and indeed citizens of other Western countries, are there fighting the Russians in Ukraine?The Canadian government says it does not track this figure, but in January 2023, the Ukrainian Foreign Legion said that Canadians were "one of the most numerous nationalities" fighting in Ukraine. CTV News says it was able to track "at least 18 Canadians who are, or were, in Ukraine as fighters or as part of humanitarian efforts."On May 1, 2023, two Canadians serving with Ukraine's International Legion, which was attached to the 92nd Mechanised Brigade, were killed in Bakhmut. Both had served in the Canadian Armed Forces, but had left before going to Ukraine. At the time, CBC News reported that they were the fourth and fifth Canadians to be killed fighting in Ukraine. By November, the Globe and Mail was reporting that nine Canadians had been killed. Like other countries in the West, the Canadian government did not send those fighters. One of the Canadians who perished was "fighting alongside two U.S. citizens who also died while fighting in the Donbas region of eastern Ukraine."A March 14 update on the number of foreign mercenaries provided by the Russian Defense Ministry, which has an interest in muddying the waters on these figures, claims that 1,005 Canadian mercenaries have gone to Ukraine to fight. It claims that at least 491 of them — nearly half — have been killed. And Canada is not number one on that list. According to the Russian update, 2,960 mercenaries have come from Poland with 1,497 of them reportedly killed. Number two is the U.S. with at least 491 of its 1,113 mercenaries killed. The update says that mercenary fighters have come from NATO members Romania and the U.K., while France has been the source of fewer: 147 French nationals have died out of 356 who have gone, according to Russia. While the credibility of these figures is unclear, in total, Russia — which also has non-Russians fighting on its behalf in Ukraine — claims 13,000 foreigners have fought for Kyiv and around 6,000 have died. The Ukrainians say their international legion is made up of around 20,000 fighters from 50 countries. But they too have their own interest in inflating the numbers. Daniel Davis, a military analyst and Senior Fellow for Defense Priorities, told RS that he has seen no independent confirmation of these figures. Alexander Hill, professor of military history at the University of Calgary, said he hadn't come across any reliable numbers, either, and told RS that real information on foreign fighters appears to be a closely guarded secret, on both sides.But perhaps the more dangerous issue is the presence, not of mercenaries, but of Western troops on the ground in Ukraine. That number, by the way, is no easier to fix.According to Defense Department documents leaked in March 2023, there were at that time at least 97 NATO special forces in Ukraine: 50 British, 17 Latvian, 15 French, 14 American and 1 Dutch. At the time, National Security Council spokesperson John Kirby refused to confirm the number but confirmed "a small U.S. military presence" there.But there are not only American troops in Ukraine, but CIA officials too. A recent New York Times report based on interviews with more than 200 current and former officials revealed that there were "scores" — so at least more than 40 — of CIA officers in Ukraine. In a transcript of an intercepted February 19 conversation between senior German air force officials, one official says, "It's known that there are numerous people there in civilian attire who speak with an American accent."That transcript also revealed that there are UK personnel on the ground, too. Discussing how German Taurus long-range missiles could be operated in Ukraine, one official says that the Germans "know how the English do it. . .. They have several people on-site." The British prime minister's office has confirmed that the UK has boots on the ground: "Beyond the small number of personnel we do have in the country supporting the armed forces of Ukraine, we haven't got any plans for large-scale deployment."Then add to the tally the French forces revealed by German Chancellor Olaf Scholz. On February 26, defending his decision not to send Taurus missiles to Ukraine, Scholz said that it would require the presence of Germans in Ukraine to match their British and French counterparts. He explained, "What is being done in the way of target control and accompanying target control on the part of the British and the French can't be done in Germany."On March 8, Polish Foreign Minister Radoslaw Sikorski confirmed that "NATO soldiers are already present in Ukraine," but he refused to "list those countries."So, though it is impossible to add up the numbers on the list, it is possible, at least, to confirm the existence of a list. And it is a risky list. As Russia appears to — possibly irreversibly — take the advantage on the battlefield, the U.S. and NATO face the long feared dilemma: accept the reality and encourage Ukraine to negotiate a diplomatic end to the war or escalate and consider sending, as French President Emmanuel Macron has recently suggested, NATO troops to fight with the Ukrainian armed forces against Russia. It would be irresponsible to go down the road of the latter without exploring the road of the former. In a March 13 interview, Russian President Vladimir Putin said Russia has "never refused negotiations" and that Russia is "ready for negotiations . . . based on the realities that have developed." The West need not take Putin at his word. But with hundreds of thousands of Ukrainians being wounded and killed with little hope of improvement on the battlefield, it would be irresponsible not to test it. Oleksandr Chalyi —Ukraine's former deputy foreign minister and a member of the negotiating team in Istanbul soon after the Russian invasion — said then that Putin "demonstrated a genuine effort to find a realistic compromise and achieve peace." Oleksiy Arestovych, a former adviser to the Office of the President of Ukraine and also a member of Ukraine's negotiating team, says he thought then that the negotiations were successful and that the Ukrainian delegation "opened the champagne bottle." While we shouldn't trust Russia's willingness to negotiate an end to the war, we should test Russia's willingness to negotiate, especially if the alternative is sending more NATO troops into Ukraine and risking a wider and, perhaps, unthinkable war.

"I don't think that [the war] is a stalemate," Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelensky told NBC News' Meet the Press on Sunday."They thought they would checkmate us, but," he insisted, "this didn't happen." According to recent interviews, his military leadership disagrees. His political inner circle thinks his insistence is delusional.Zelensky is facing pressure both from within Ukraine and from without. Growing pressure from within is coming from both the political and military leadership; growing pressure from without is coming from Ukraine's key partners.The battle is largely being played out in the Western media. Most intimately, Zelensky has faced criticism from his political inner circle. TIME magazine reports that some of the president's advisors have become worried that his "belief in Ukraine's ultimate victory over Russia . . . "verg[es] on the messianic." One of Zelensky's "closest aides" said that Zelensky "deludes himself." The aide complained, "We're out of options. We're not winning. But try telling him that."Some Zelensky aides say his intransigence hampers Ukraine's ability to adapt to the changed reality on the battlefield and worry that negotiating a settlement with Russia remains "taboo."Domestic criticism is also coming from the top levels of the military. Zelensky is reportedly in conflict with his generals over the conduct of the counteroffensive and over his demands to defend Bakhmut and Avdiivka at any cost, which the military leadership sees as a strategic mistake that is already hurting Ukraine dearly in soldiers and equipment. A senior Ukrainian military officer said that orders from the president's office are, at times, disconnected from the battlefield reality and defended some front-line commanders who have begun second-guessing and refusing "orders from the top."Zelensky's struggle with his generals intensified on November 3 when Zelensky fired General Viktor Khorenko, the commander of Ukraine's special operations forces. The commander-in-chief of the Ukrainian army, General Valery Zaluzhny, did not request his dismissal. The New York Times reports that "It was unclear whether General Zaluzhny, the overall commander of Ukraine's forces, knew in advance of the planned dismissal" and that "[t]he firing appeared to undercut General Zaluzhny's authority."The firing took U.S. military officers, who "described a close and effective working relationship with" Khorenko, by surprise. Khorenko's special operations forces had had some success with long-range strikes and sabotage operations behind Russian lines. But the NYT reports that there had been tension over what the military had "perceived as politically guided decisions on strategy" that had been ineffective and costly.Zelensky's tensions with his generals reached a peak with Zaluzhny's November 1 interview with The Economist. He asserted that the war had reached a "stalemate." He conceded that "There will most likely be no deep and beautiful breakthrough."What's worse is that Zaluzhny implied that the stalemate would evolve into defeat for Ukraine. A stalemate entails a long war of attrition. In a companion essay published simultaneously by The Economist, he explained that a long war "as a rule, in most cases, is beneficial to one of the parties to the conflict. In our particular case, it is the russian [sic] federation, as it gives it the opportunity to reconstitute and build up its military power."Zaluzhny said that in a prolonged war, Ukraine will run out of the "required volume" of missiles and ammunition while Russia, despite sanctions, is increasing its production capabilities. And even if it didn't run out of weapons, he added, it will run out of men: a war of attrition "leads to the lack of Ukraine's ability to achieve superiority over the enemy in reserves by increasing their number." A close Zelensky aide told TIME that, even if the United States gave Ukraine all the weapons it needed, Kyiv doesn't "have the men to use them."Zelensky's office censured Zaluzhny, saying it "eases the work" of Russia and stirs "panic" among Ukraine's Western partners. The New York Times calls the censure "a striking public rebuke that signaled an emerging rift between the military and civilian leadership."In addition to the pressure coming from within Zelensky's inner political and military circle, diplomatic pressure is also coming from Zelensky's international partners. A November 3 NBC News article reported that "U.S. and European officials have begun quietly talking to the Ukrainian government about what possible peace negotiations with Russia might entail to end the war." The article went on to say, citing one current and one former senior U.S. official familiar with the discussions, that "the conversations have included very broad outlines of what Ukraine might need to give up to reach a deal."The quiet talks suggest agreement by the U.S. and its European allies with Zaluzhny that Ukraine may not achieve its goals on the battlefield, that the realization of their aspirations may continue to dim with prolonged battle, and that some concessions may need to be made.There is a remarkable convergence in the language used by the U.S. and European officials and the language used by Zaluzhny and Zelensky's aides. NBC reports that the conversations "began amid concerns among U.S. and European officials that the war has reached a stalemate." NBC reports that, like Zaluzhny, "[s]ome U.S. military officials have privately begun using the term 'stalemate' to describe the current battle in Ukraine."Like Zaluzhny and Zelensky's aides, "Biden administration officials also are worried that Ukraine is running out of forces." According to "people familiar with the matter," NBC reported, "President Joe Biden has been intensely focused on Ukraine's depleting military forces." "Manpower," one of those sources is quoted as saying, "is at the top of the administration's concerns right now." Echoing the "close Zelensky aide" quoted in TIME, the same source said, "The U.S. and its allies can provide Ukraine with weaponry, but if they don't have competent forces to use them it doesn't do a lot of good."These concerns, NBC reported, have led U.S. officials to concede privately that "Ukraine likely only has until the end of the year or shortly thereafter before more urgent discussions about peace negotiations should begin."That leaves only a couple of months. With the battlefield turning against Ukraine despite Zelensky's intransigent "belief in Ukraine's ultimate victory over Russia," the pressure targeted at Zelensky seems to be building, from both within and without,, to turn to the diplomatic front and face the beginning of the end of the war.

Slovakia has been a solid supporter of its neighbor, Ukraine. It has supported Kyiv diplomatically in the UN, EU, and NATO. They were one of the first countries to provide military aid to Ukraine.Moreover, Slovakia has sent Ukraine ammunition, surface-to-air missiles, and helicopters. Along with Poland, they were the first country to transfer fighter jets — their entire fleet of retired MiG-29 fighters — and they were the first country to send an air defense system, the only S-300 air defense system they had.But on September 30, Robert Fico and his leftist-populist Smer-SSD party won 23% of the vote in the parliamentary elections on a platform that included the promise that if his party "enters government, we will not send a single round of ammunition to Ukraine." If SMER-SSD is able to create a majority coalition Fico will be Slovakia's prime minister for the third time. He resigned his last term in 2018 after the murder of a journalist who was reporting alleged ties between organized crime and government officials.The Progressive Slovakia party came in second with about 17% of the vote, followed by the Hlas party with 14.7%. Hlas split off from Smer in 2020, and its leader, Peter Pellegrini, has suggested that he leans toward supporting Fico. Pellegrini has said that Slovakia "had nothing left to donate" to Ukraine, but that Slovakia should continue manufacturing and shipping ammunition to Ukraine.Fico doubled down on Ukraine Sunday, saying his position "has not changed." He then explained that "People in Slovakia have bigger problems than Ukraine." He added that he is "prepared to help Ukraine in a humanitarian way … we are prepared to help with the reconstruction of the state. But you know our opinion on arming Ukraine."In addition to no longer arming Ukraine, Fico promised to "do everything" in his power to start peace talks to end the war. He also opposes EU sanctions on Russia and Ukraine joining NATO. Fico has also attributed blame equally to the political West and Ukraine for starting the war.Meanwhile, Poland has been, perhaps, the strongest supporter of Ukraine. It has given Ukraine about a third of its own weapons — about $4 billion worth — and been the major transit point for the movement of other NATO countries' weapons into Ukraine. It has been a forceful supporter of Ukraine's bids for more advanced weapons and for membership in NATO.But a dispute over the export of Ukrainian grain has exposed the fragility of that partnership. The fragility was irritated by Poland's annoyance over what it sees as Ukraine's unwillingness to confront a nationalist past that was hostile to Poland. In July, the Polish parliament adopted a resolution that includes "recognition of guilt" by Ukraine for the Volhynian massacre — anti-Polish ethnic cleansings conducted by Ukrainian nationalists in German occupied Poland through the summer of 1943. According to the resolution, "Polish-Ukrainian reconciliation, which representatives of both nations have been building for years, should also include an admission of guilt and perpetuation of the memory of the victims of World War II." Meanwhile, Canadian officials had to apologize last week for paying tribute to a Ukrainian Canadian World War II veteran who was later revealed to be a member of the Nazi German Waffen-SS's Galizien Division. Poland's ambassador to Ukraine later told Canadian CTV News that "this is a person who participated in an organization that was targeting Poles, was committing mass murders of Poles, not only the military personnel but also civilians."But it is the recent grain dispute that threatens to tear the fragile relationship. Ukraine has accused Poland of abandoning them by restricting the import of Ukrainian grain to protect Polish farmers and markets. Poland shot back that Ukraine needs to be "more grateful" and suggested that Kiev "should start to appreciate the role that Poland has played for Ukraine in the past months and years." Ukraine then responded by calling in the Polish ambassador to Ukraine, a diplomatic maneuver Poland's Prime Minister Mateusz Morawiecki said "should not have happened," calling it "a mistake . . . given the huge support Poland has provided to Ukraine."The row grew worse when, in his speech to the UN General Assembly, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky accused Poland of betraying Ukraine and abetting Russia, complaining that "some in Europe play out solidarity in a political theatre – making thriller from the grain. They may seem to play their own role but in fact, they are helping set the stage to a Moscow actor."That accusation, together with Ukraine's taking Poland, Hungary, and Slovakia to the World Trade Organization over their import ban on Ukrainian grain, pushed Morawiecki to announce that Poland is "no longer transferring weapons to Ukraine, because we are now arming Poland with more modern weapons," though they would honor the arms agreements they already have with Ukraine and permit other countries to ship their arms to Ukraine through Poland.The last of the three countries that Ukraine has filed a complaint against with the WTO, Hungary, has also recently joined Poland and Slovakia in widening the crack in NATO. Hungary was the originator of the Eastern European fissure, refusing to send weapons to Ukraine, advocating peace talks as a solution to the war, and criticizing sanctions on Russia. But that widened on September 25 when Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban announced an end of support for Ukraine in international affairs. Orban's government is upset with Ukraine over a law that restricts the use of minority languages in Ukraine. Hungary claims that this law violates the rights of ethnic Hungarians in Ukraine to use Hungarian, especially in education. "They want to transform [Hungarian schools] into Ukrainian schools and if that does not work they want to close them," Orban said before adding that "We do not support Ukraine in any issue in the international scene until it restores the laws that guarantee the rights of Hungarians."Fico's election could put Slovakia in a triumvirate of countries with Poland and Hungary that all share borders with Ukraine, that all are members of NATO and that all, to a degree that remains to be seen, are widening the crack within NATO on its stance on the war in Ukraine.